NASA announced that it will hold off until mid-2026 to decide on the most efficient and cost-effective way to bring Martian samples collected by the Perseverance rover back to Earth. The agency is evaluating two options: an upgraded version of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) sky crane or a commercially built “heavy lander.”
Revised Mars Sample Return architecture, July 2022. From left: NASA Ingenuity-class helicopter, ESA Earth Return Orbiter, NASA Perseverance rover, NASA lander with ESA robotic arm, and NASA Mars Ascent Vehicle. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
The pause in the Mars Sample Return (MSR) program comes after the estimated cost ballooned to $11 billion, pushing the expected return date for the samples into the 2040s. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson called for a comprehensive review of the program last spring, seeking faster and more affordable alternatives. Today’s update follows an independent review led by MIT scientist Maria Zuber, which has narrowed the estimated costs for the two proposed options to between $5.8 billion and $7.7 billion, with a revised timeline targeting the mid-to-late 2030s.
Revised Approach to Mars Sample Return
The MSR program, a joint effort between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), involves three key steps:
1. Collection: The Perseverance rover collects scientifically selected samples of Martian soil and rock, including evidence of Mars’ past habitability.
2. Launch to Orbit: A Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) will deliver the samples into Mars orbit.
Mars Sample Return architecture in 2020. Credit: ESA
- Return to Earth: ESA’s European Return Orbiter (ERO) will bring the samples back to Earth.
While the first and third phases remain largely unchanged, NASA is reassessing how best to deliver the MAV to Mars’ surface. This middle step, which involves navigating Mars’ thin atmosphere and overcoming its gravity to achieve orbit, is the program’s most significant engineering challenge.
Two Options Under Consideration
NASA is weighing the following options to achieve the mission goals:
1. Upgraded Sky Crane:
Cost Estimate: $6.6–$7.7 billion.
This approach involves an upgraded version of the sky crane used to land the Curiosity rover in 2012 and Perseverance in 2021. The new sky crane would be 20% larger to accommodate the MAV.
2. Commercial Heavy Lander:
Cost Estimate: $5.8–$7.1 billion.
Details of this option remain proprietary, as it involves proposals from private industry.
Both options would launch ESA’s ERO in 2030, followed by NASA’s lander and MAV in 2031, aiming to return samples to Earth between 2035 and 2039. However, Nelson emphasized that the timeline depends heavily on funding, with $300 million needed in fiscal year 2025 to continue engineering studies.
Streamlined Mission Architecture
NASA has already made some adjustments to simplify the mission and reduce costs:
Perseverance will transport its 30 samples directly to the lander, eliminating the need for helicopters to retrieve backup samples stored in Jezero Crater.
The MAV will use a Radioisotope Power System (RPS) instead of solar panels, enabling it to operate during Martian dust storms.
A redesigned sample-loading system will minimize dust contamination, ensuring planetary protection standards are met without additional cleaning.
A Race with China?
China is also planning a Mars sample return mission, sparking speculation about a space race. However, Nelson downplayed comparisons, emphasizing that NASA’s mission is scientifically driven.
“You cannot compare the two,” Nelson said. “Our mission is designed by the global scientific community to tell Mars’ story and explore whether life ever existed there. China’s proposed ‘grab and go’ mission won’t provide the same comprehensive insights.”
Next Steps
NASA’s final decision on the mission architecture will depend on funding and engineering evaluations. The outcome will determine whether the United States maintains its leadership in Mars exploration or risks losing ground to other nations.
“Our focus is on delivering a scientifically groundbreaking mission that brings the best return on investment,” Nelson said. “We’re committed to doing this the right way.”
Add comment
Comments